The Prime Minister was wrong about Iraq.

Mr Blair stated that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” which were
a threat to the UK. We now know that he was mistaken in his belief.

Since the UK have invaded Iraq, thousands of Iraqi people have been
killed, civilians and soldiers. Mr Blair authorised sending British
soldiers in, and so far 50 have died, with no end in sight. The cost
to the UK economy is measured in billions, with no end in sight. There
is talk of more soldiers being sent, and more money being spent.

The Iraqi economy and infrastructure is in a very bad way, by all
accounts, with no electricity or running water.

The threat of terrorism has by no means diminished. Since Saddam
Hussain was never really a threat, “taking him out” has not reduced
the risk to us in the UK. If anything, the threat has been increased,
because we have upset a great many Muslim people, who don’t like to
see Western interference in the traditional homelands of people of the
Islamic faith, regardless of whether Saddam Hussain was a good man or
not.

To suumarise even further. 50 soldiers have been killed, the financial
cost runs into several billion, but since there are IN FACT no weapons
of mass destruction it follows that Mr BLair could not have KNOWN that
there were any, since in order to know something it has to be TRUE.
Therefore he could have only believed that the weapons existed, but
did not know, because you cannot know something that turns out to be
false. This is a very serious error on the part of the Prime Minister,
and Mr Robin Cook and Ms Claire Short were right after all, as were
the Liberal Democrats and the BNP to warn us not to get involved.

James hammerto 2012-06-12 00:14:17

truthsometimeshurts@yahoo.co.uk (Pete) writes:

I suppose you wanted Saddam to remain in power, torturing and
murdering his citizens. I grant the post-war situation is looking
rather bad at the moment, but at least there is now a chance for Iraq
to become a better place.

It’s difficult to know where to start here in order to counter your false
assumptions caused by your obvious bias. Blair would have been damned by
you if he had done nothing only to find out too late that Iraq had WMD.
BTW, David Kelly thought they had WMD hidden & said so. Perhaps you
overlooked this – again, caused by blind bias.

Just accept that sometimes you have got to let the politicians &
intelligence people get on with what they feel is correct – after all, they
have much, much more information about any situation than the likes of you
and me will ever have. We only gather our information from the media & the
press & you can scarcely believe anything they report.

Oh & BTW, they haven’t found Saddam yet so I suppose under your false
assumptions he must never had existed.

DT

Stephen.glynn 2012-06-27 18:51:33

You push the point too far, I fear.

If it is alleged that St Tone (The Peoples’ Saint) or President Bush
the Younger ordered war crimes to be committed, there is a
well-established mechanism with which to prosecute them.

However, I do not understand how anyone can be prosecuted for ‘waging
an unlawful war’ or which tribunal would think itself competent to
hear the case.

You say ‘Thats why laws exist’, but I’m not sure they do to handle
this situation, any more than there is a court competent or willing to
hear the case.

Steve

Fed up 2012-06-27 19:47:59

It certainly is for the Iraqis.

Those articles were included in the web site because the people running it –
Iraqi expatriates – felt it was a reflection of what Iraq is like, and when
it comes to things like electricity, the Iraqis are worse off.

With American expertise, you would have thought that among the main
priorities would be fully restoring the water supply and electricity; health
facilities, and law and order.

You made a direct reference to me, so you have the onus of producing the
proof, where is it?

I didn’t say Iraq was “all” about oil. It is a country in a strategically
significant region, and posed a threat to Israel; as well as the oil.

The US wanted to build a pipeline from the Caspian region down to the coast through western Afghanistan.

1 out of 5.
NK no oil to talk of, but DEFINITELY does have WMD, and human rights abuses.

Zimbabwe doesn’t fall into the same category.

But he still writes for a newspaper, which pays him, does it not? Thereform
his writings have to be within the ambit of what the owner allows to be
written, is that clear enough?

Since you have stated you are “sure”, produce the proof, otherwise you can’t
be “sure”.

Oh, and change your handle, as you are an insult to his name.
—
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.

It is a handful. It is also a large country. We spent decades chasing
our tails in Northern Ireland, but that (like this) was never anything
other than a policing operation.

Of course not. Because it patently isn’t the case. What we are facing
are the scared remnants of the Baathist party, together with those
god-bothering lunatics who – to the clear and evident disgust of the
Iraqi people – flocked into Saddam’s Iraq to try to tweak the tail of
the Great Satan.

They are becoming more and more isolated and will either be killed or
will run away to another country the better to tell tales of their
bravery and derring do.